Bombay High Court
Sanjay Ballabhdas Gandhi vs Dattatraya Deoraoji Chafle on 24 January, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
wp 7622.19. 1/3 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.7622/2019
Sanjay V Dattatraya
***********************************************************************************
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
***********************************************************************************
Mr. V.J. Maheshwari, Adv. for petitioner.
Mr. V.K. Paliwal, Adv. for respondent.
CORAM : AVINASH G GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 24-01-2023
It is contented that in a suit for eviction u/s
16(1)(e) (g) of the MRC Act, the respondent filed his
written statment at exh-12 in which it is categorically
admitted by him, that the premises were not in his
possession and the possession thereof was handed over to
one Vinod Ashtankar and his brother who are occupying the
same as a licensee, but are having exclusive possession. In
fact para 2 of the written statement further goes on to say
that said Vinod Ashtankar had also filed RCS No.93/2010
against the present respondent, for declaration and
permanent injunction which has been dismissed by the
Judgment dated 09-12-15. Appeal No.61/2016, there
against also stands dismissed on 30-09-22. It is further
submitted that RCS No.461/10 filed by the present
respondent against Vinod and Ravi Ashtankar, u/s 6 of the
Specific Relief Act claiming possession has also been
dismissed for want of prosecution on 11-02-2016.
wp 7622.19. 2/3 4
2. In light of the above position, an application
under Order 12 Rule 6 of the C.P.C. for judgment and
admission came to be filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in
RCS No.344/17 a suit for eviction instituted by the
petitioner in which by the order dated 31-7-18, it was held
that the admission regarding possession of the suit property
was not given by Vinod Ashtankar and therefore cannot be
used against him (page 32), therefore the application came
to be dismissed. A revision application against the said
order dated 31-07-18 also stands dismissed by the judgment
dated 6-8-19.
3. It is contended that the admissions as
contained in the written statement filed by the present
respondent in RCS No.344/17 (pg 20) as well as those in
the plaint in RCS No.461/10 filed by the respondent against
Vinod Ashtankar and another (pg 23), are clear and specific
regarding handing over of possession. Inviting my attention
to the language of Sec. 16 (1)(e)(ii) of the MRC Act, it is
contended that unlawfully subletting or giving on licence,
the whole or the part of the premises or assignment or
transfer in any manner the interest of the tenant therein
would entail the landlord to recover the possession. It is
contended that since an admission regarding delivery of
possession and handing over the keys of the suit premises
already stands contained in para 2 of the written statement
at Exh 12 filed by the respondent in RCS No. 344/17, there
was no question of any admission by Ashtankar or its use
against him on account of which the impugned order and
judgment are liable to be set aside and the application for
wp 7622.19. 3/3 4
judgment and admission needs to be allowed.
4. Mr. Paliwal, learned Counsel for the
respondent, does not dispute the averments in the written
statement at Exh 12 in RCS No.344/17, nor the averments
in RCS No.461/10 filed by the respondent. He, however,
seeks a week's time to place on record subsequent events,
which according to him are material and germane for
deciding the present petition, considering which, list the
matter on 31-01-2023.
JUDGE
Deshmukh
